Moving from Passive to Active

I make it a point not to respond directly to readers’ comments on my articles at the Presidential Prayer Team web site. Any response of any kind could open cans of worms that would be too complicated to put back in order.

But here on this blog I’d like to analyze a recent reader’s comment. Reacting to my assertion that higher education (and most forms of government entitlement) are not a Biblical role of government, the reader wrote:

“However, I must ask how others are to be provided for without any government programs when they are not being taken care of now even with government programs in place (sic) and also how they are to be provided for when the percentage of church people in America who are willing simply to tithe is merely five percent.”

Setting aside, for the moment, the regrettable percentage of tithers, let me play the grammar geek for a minute and analyze what the writer was saying.

“To be provided for” (used twice) and “being taken care” are constructions in the passive voice. Active voice versions would say “X provides for Y (or even for X himself)” or “X takes care of Y (or X).”

This is more than a grammatical accident. We have moved from an “active” society [“I must take care of myself, trusting God for His Providence”] to a passive one [“I must be taken care of – by the government, God, anybody - but one thing’s for sure: my efforts are irrelevant.”]

One of the things I like best about classical Christian education is our emphasis on life in the past - not only in the teaching of history itself, but in the literature we select for the student to read. Stories like Little House on the Prairie, Robinson Crusoe, Swiss Family Robinson, Baby Island, Adam of the Road, House of 60 Fathers, and The Yearling (among dozens of other classics) show young people and families living simply, making sacrifices, fearlessly facing the unknown, trusting God, and surviving. Compared to the spoiled expectations of current American culture, it’s downright embarrassing.

As for the writer’s slam about meager numbers of Christians tithing (which is probably true, though possibly not as extreme as only five per cent), the author did not provide any proof or documentation. However, it has been demonstrated dramatically that believers give more time and money to secular charities than non-believers do. For the story behind this statistic, you can read the research here at the Hoover Institute.

This being true, combine that superiority with all the giving that is supporting thousands of churches, thousands of parachurch ministries, and thousands of missionaries, and maybe the problem isn’t just the church. If unbelievers were giving as generously as believers, who also pay taxes, maybe the net outcome would be more favorable to those in need. And this does not even touch on the fact that government systems are notorious for being abused and misused.

I am convinced this country would be better off without any government funds being used for “charity.”

1. Some people would have to wake up and take responsibility for themselves.

2. Defunding all of the government aid schemes would put more money back in the hands of individuals.

3. Local agents (non-governmental) could address local problems without expensive red tape and unwieldy “policies.”

4. We would be blessed for following biblical wisdom, instead of trying to build a Tower of Babel.